Tangent Thread - Summer 2017 Edition

[Redux]

Interesting how many were quick to play the "at least we weren't getting blown out" card for the 2015 season.

Whoops.

What point are you trying to make with this? It was the only silver lining of a sh**ty season other than a win over #5 MSU. Seems you're just blatantly stirring the pot with this comment.

 

[Mavric]

I just think it's interesting to see what kind of rationalizations people come up with when they want to. That's more or less what the previous several posts had been about. Not saying that's what IA State Husker or anyone posting here said about 2015. But he offered a pretty good run-down for what an average fan might think based on what record we finished with this year.

I think it will be interesting to see what the overriding feeling will be this year depending on how it plays out. I see a lot of sentiment for 7-8 wins. That used to be thought of as less than what a drunk monkey could do but apparently not anymore. In 2015 there was a huge amount of "but we were SO CLOSE to winning a bunch of those games" and that was almost in lock step with "and at least we didn't get blow out in any of them." However, that turned out to not be the case for the 2016 team so it changed to lack of talent and getting rid of more of the supposed malcontents.

If we are in the 7-8 range this year, I suspect there will be a lot of "we're still building the talent base" along with "changing defensive scheme" and "adjusting our offense to what Riley and Langs really want to run." Of course, that will dove-tail into 2018 which people are already warning against a pretty tough schedule.

 

[Redux]

I just think it's interesting to see what kind of rationalizations people come up with when they want to. That's more or less what the previous several posts had been about. Not saying that's what IA State Husker or anyone posting here said about 2015. But he offered a pretty good run-down for what an average fan might think based on what record we finished with this year.

I think it will be interesting to see what the overriding feeling will be this year depending on how it plays out. I see a lot of sentiment for 7-8 wins. That used to be thought of as less than what a drunk monkey could do but apparently not anymore. In 2015 there was a huge amount of "but we were SO CLOSE to winning a bunch of those games" and that was almost in lock step with "and at least we didn't get blow out in any of them." However, that turned out to not be the case for the 2016 team so it changed to lack of talent and getting rid of more of the supposed malcontents.

If we are in the 7-8 range this year, I suspect there will be a lot of "we're still building the talent base" along with "changing defensive scheme" and "adjusting our offense to what Riley and Langs really want to run." Of course, that will dove-tail into 2018 which people are already warning against a pretty tough schedule.

Were we not in every game we played in 2015? 5-7 is absolutely unacceptable, no excuses. Yet we still could have won every damn game, we just had no clue how to finish games.
2016 it became clear we were winning games on a bum leg. A couple injuries and we were toast. Sure enough, that happened. We dumped EVERYTHING into Wisconsin, our blowout to tOSU wasn't entirely unexpected. I never expected it to be THAT bad, but I wasn't confident in our chances going in.

Now, the whole lack of talent argument. It's been discussed and debated constantly. The fact of the matter is this, we DID NOT and DO NOT currently have the talent to be a playoff team. That doesn't mean we don't have talent, we do. We just don't have enough of it or enough game changing players to comfortably win this league yet. We could stumble into it sure, but we aren't there yet.

We are getting those guys on the team, but several are Freshmen or just about to start playing their first real college football rotation. I love the guys we have coming in. This rebuild and revamp has taken a long time.

 

[Mavric]

Were we not in every game we played in 2015? 5-7 is absolutely unacceptable, no excuses. Yet we still could have won every damn game, we just had no clue how to finish games.

OK. I don't think I argued anything different. I agree with you. But most people don't go for "no excuses."

2016 it became clear we were winning games on a bum leg. A couple injuries and we were toast. Sure enough, that happened. We dumped EVERYTHING into Wisconsin, our blowout to tOSU wasn't entirely unexpected. I never expected it to be THAT bad, but I wasn't confident in our chances going in.

Eh ... that's one possibility but it's a lot of speculation. I don't particularly buy it. We played well against Wisconsin but let's not pretend they were some juggernaut. They were a poor offensive team that we competed with. Obviously would have been really nice to get that win but I think lots of claims of "that loss derailed the season" are overblown. What people "expected" to happen doesn't really have any bearing on anything.

Now, the whole lack of talent argument. It's been discussed and debated constantly. The fact of the matter is this, we DID NOT and DO NOT currently have the talent to be a playoff team. That doesn't mean we don't have talent, we do. We just don't have enough of it or enough game changing players to comfortably win this league yet. We could stumble into it sure, but we aren't there yet.

Considering we weren't competing in the playoff or playing in the Conference Championship game, you're argument that we didn't have enough talent for those doesn't really matter. Why would we have to have enough to "comfortably with this league"? Does anyone in college football have that?

We are getting those guys on the team, but several are Freshmen or just about to start playing their first real college football rotation. I love the gus we have coming in. This rebuild and revamp has take a long time.

And again, the narrative has changed from "it's the coaches holding us back" to "we have to rebuild the talent". We don't need to have enough talent to compete in the Playoff to win the West. We need to get more out of the talent we have. That's not absolving the players of needing to do their part in playing well, but people like to over-blow the talent talk to try to avoid talking about how we just haven't been performing that well.

 

[Redux]

Were we not in every game we played in 2015? 5-7 is absolutely unacceptable, no excuses. Yet we still could have won every damn game, we just had no clue how to finish games.

OK. I don't think I argued anything different. I agree with you. But most people don't go for "no excuses."

2016 it became clear we were winning games on a bum leg. A couple injuries and we were toast. Sure enough, that happened. We dumped EVERYTHING into Wisconsin, our blowout to tOSU wasn't entirely unexpected. I never expected it to be THAT bad, but I wasn't confident in our chances going in.

Eh ... that's one possibility but it's a lot of speculation. I don't particularly buy it. We played well against Wisconsin but let's not pretend they were some juggernaut. They were a poor offensive team that we competed with. Obviously would have been really nice to get that win but I think lots of claims of "that loss derailed the season" are overblown. What people "expected" to happen doesn't really have any bearing on anything.

Now, the whole lack of talent argument. It's been discussed and debated constantly. The fact of the matter is this, we DID NOT and DO NOT currently have the talent to be a playoff team. That doesn't mean we don't have talent, we do. We just don't have enough of it or enough game changing players to comfortably win this league yet. We could stumble into it sure, but we aren't there yet.

Considering we weren't competing in the playoff or playing in the Conference Championship game, you're argument that we didn't have enough talent for those doesn't really matter. Why would we have to have enough to "comfortably with this league"? Does anyone in college football have that?

We are getting those guys on the team, but several are Freshmen or just about to start playing their first real college football rotation. I love the gus we have coming in. This rebuild and revamp has take a long time.

And again, the narrative has changed from "it's the coaches holding us back" to "we have to rebuild the talent". We don't need to have enough talent to compete in the Playoff to win the West. We need to get more out of the talent we have. That's not absolving the players of needing to do their part in playing well, but people like to over-blow the talent talk to try to avoid talking about how we just haven't been performing that well.

The Wisconsin loss didn't derail the season, the season was already in severe danger.
That was kinda the whole point. We started losing games and getting blown out because of lack of depth, bot enough elite talent, and for whatever damned reason guys still adjusting to the new schemes. This talent debate is stupid. You and I both know that over the last 2 seasons we have had pretty good talent, capable of winning the division. But the staff change, players not buting in, injuries and severe lack of depth have led us to come up short of what we should be accomplishing. Throw in a playmaker or two on both sides and we probably win a game or three more over the last 2 seasons.

Yes we are underperforming. But with the staff getting "their guys" we should see that change this year. If not, then we can start pointing a bulk of the blame on them.

Here's the deal, we got a pretty decent coach. One that doesn't win a crapload of games but can recruit like crazy. Let's be honest, we hired him to drain the swamp, bring in elite talent, win a division or two and hand the reigns off to the next guy (UNL hoping that is Scott Frost). Next guy comes in and is handed a loaded team and starts kicking the snot out of the Big Ten. Those wins make it easier for them to keep recruiting elite talent, so the wins keep coming. We can pretend that wasn't what this hire was all we want, but I feel confident in saying that's what it was. I just hope to hell Riley can churn out a title before hanging it up.

 

[Mavric]

The Wisconsin loss didn't derail the season, the season was already in severe danger.

The season was already in severe danger when we were 7-0 and ranked #7 in the country?

I'll take revisionist history for $1000, Alex.

 

[Mavric]

Here's the deal, we got a pretty decent coach. One that doesn't win a crapload of games but can recruit like crazy.

I think what you just described is a pretty below-average coach.

 

[Redux]

The Wisconsin loss didn't derail the season, the season was already in severe danger.

The season was already in severe danger when we were 7-0 and ranked #7 in the country?I'll take revisionist history for $1000, Alex.

Oh, was this not the team struggling to put away Indiana? Was this not the team that had to put all it's effort into securing a comeback win over the worst Oregon team in over a decade? Was this not the same team that had to suffer 3 quarters against Illinois before pulling away? Revisionist my a$$, we got to 7-0 because we earned it, but we hobbled to that 7-0 on a bum leg.

Here's the deal, we got a pretty decent coach. One that doesn't win a crapload of games but can recruit like crazy.

I think what you just described is a pretty below-average coach.

Depends how you define a crapload. But I can imagine how one with your perspective does.

 

[Toe]

Here's the deal, we got a pretty decent coach. One that doesn't win a crapload of games but can recruit like crazy.

I think what you just described is a pretty below-average coach.

I think what he just described is Bill Callahan. And Callahan, for anyone who needs a refresher, took Nebraska to a conference championship game in his third year. Bo Pelini reached that point in two years. So what would you say the odds are of Riley reaching that mark in year three?

 

[Saunders]

Here's the deal, we got a pretty decent coach. One that doesn't win a crapload of games but can recruit like crazy.

I think what you just described is a pretty below-average coach.

I think what he just described is Bill Callahan. And Callahan, for anyone who needs a refresher, took Nebraska to a conference championship game in his third year. Bo Pelini reached that point in two years. So what would you say the odds are of Riley reaching that mark in year three?

 

[Mavric]

The Wisconsin loss didn't derail the season, the season was already in severe danger.

The season was already in severe danger when we were 7-0 and ranked #7 in the country?
I'll take revisionist history for $1000, Alex.

Oh, was this not the team struggling to put away Indiana? Was this not the team that had to put all it's effort into securing a comeback win over the worst Oregon team in over a decade? Was this not the same team that had to suffer 3 quarters against Illinois before pulling away? Revisionist my a$$, we got to 7-0 because we earned it, but we hobbled to that 7-0 on a bum leg.

That didn't seem to be your attitude at the time.

This is the week we put it all together. Wisconsin will give us everything they have left in the tank, and late in the game it will look like they have it in thr bag.

But then our defense is going to do something spectacular to get us the ball. Then, our offense will put together a drive that will live on in Husker-lore for decades. With only a minute or two to spare we will take the lead and seal the game away.

(Yes, it was supposed to be loses. I'm just so excited that Nebraska is going to win the word just keeps popping into my head)

 

[Redux]

Hey look at that, I was being optimistic in the middle of a 7-0 season. Who woulda thunk it?

Now that we know how it ended, it's easy to look back and see how the team was performing on a week to week basis. But please keep trying to spin your narrative.

And for the record my prediction wasn't far off. We just got Tommy Armstronged.

 

[Mavric]

Hey look at that, I was being optimistic in the middle of a 7-0 season. Who woulda thunk it?

Now that we know how it ended, it's easy to look back and see how the team was performing on a week to week basis. But please keep trying to spin your narrative.

And for the record my prediction wasn't far off. We just got Tommy Armstronged.

Like I said, revisionist.

Some of use were raising the red flags without the benefit of hind-sight. However the "optimists" largely wrote those observations off as just wanting to be negative or cheering for the staff to fail.

 

[Redux]

Hey look at that, I was being optimistic in the middle of a 7-0 season. Who woulda thunk it?

Now that we know how it ended, it's easy to look back and see how the team was performing on a week to week basis. But please keep trying to spin your narrative.

And for the record my prediction wasn't far off. We just got Tommy Armstronged.

Like I said, revisionist.

Some of use were raising the red flags without the benefit of hind-sight. However the "optimists" largely wrote those observations off as just wanting to be negative or cheering for the staff to fail.

Maybe people wouldn't label you a pessemist if you weren't so pessemistic about everything. Just a thought.